# Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District > Supreme Court of the United States · February 24, 1969 · 393 U.S. 503 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423908 ## Case - **Full name:** TINKER Et Al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** February 24, 1969 - **Citations:** 393 U.S. 503; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222; 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart - **Judges:** Harlan, Stewart, White, Black, Fortas - **Cited by:** 2,736 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Walker-Serrano v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (2003). - Negative treatments: 4 - Distinguished by: 7 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423908 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that "the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbance or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred," even t… - holding that the Des Moines School District could not punish high-school and junior high-school students for wearing black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam war where the students merely caused discussion outside the classrooms and neither interrupted school activi… - stating that "in some precisely delineated areas, a child -- like someone in a captive audience -- is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees." (emphasis added) (quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. … - holding that students have the right to express their opinions, even on controversial topics, if they do so “without ‘materially and substantially interfer(ing) with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’ and without colliding with the right… - reasoning that, if a rule were adopted "forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict, or expression by any student of opposition to it anywhere on school property except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise," that rule would be unconstitutional absent a showing of mater… ## Opinion text Me. Justice Stewart, concurring. Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court’s opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I *515 cannot share the Court’s uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults. Indeed, I had thought the Court decided otherwise just last Term in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 . I continue to hold the view I expressed in that case: “[A] State may permissibly determine that, at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child — like someone in a captive audience — is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees.” Id., at 649-650 (concurring in result). Cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423908. Public record. Not legal advice.